ANNA HALL, PhD Delgado Community College, New Orleans, LA Presented - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

ANNA HALL, PhD

Delgado Community College, New Orleans, LA Presented at the QM Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June 2010 Research grant funding provided by Quality Matters

Contents

1 2

Two-fold Purpose of Study:

• Multi-factor COI “Teaching Presence”
• Effects of QM Rubric Implementation

Theoretical Background:

• COI Framework
• Literature on Teacher Effects on Learning

3 4

Data, Methods, Measures

Preliminary Analyses: CFA; ANOVA, Regression

5

Summary:

Conclusions, Observations, Future Research

Research Questions

“Who Am I?”- and Does It Matter? “When Is This Due?”

COI Teaching Presence:

• Design and Organization
• Directed Facilitation

This Project: Instructor’s personality and style, availability, expression of personal views (“Teacher Presence”) affect Student Social and Cognitive Presences, Student Performance and Satisfaction. QM:

• Alignment of Course Goals,

Objectives, SLOs, Resources, Assessments

• Rubrics, Schedules, Feedback

Mechanisms This Project: QM Rubric is proxy for new type of “Design and Organization” in COI, affecting

• ther COI Presences and

Student performance.

Theoretical Background: COI and Teaching Presence

Community of Inquiry Framework

(Garrison et al. 2000) SP- participants feel “affectively connected one to another” CP- learners “are able to construct and confirm meaning through sustained reflection and discourse” TP- “design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive and social processes to support learning” (Swan and Ice 2010) COI Survey Instrument:

Others on “Teaching” and “Teacher”

Directed Facilitation Teacher Presence

Mishra 2006 (TPCK Model components)- “Presentational” and “Performance Tutoring” Schulman 1987 (PCKM Model)- “Performance Tutoring” and “Epistemic” components Anderson et al. 2001- Instructor personal insights Arsham 2002- Instructor professional expertise, confidence Elmendorf and Ottenhoff 2009- argued for students’ “intellectual play”/ Instructor’s absence from DB (in hybrid classes); DB absence compensated by in-class discussions Arsham 2002- Instructor availability, feedback, personal enthusiasm Cananaugh 2005- Teacher’s individualized attention McLain 2005- Instructor/ Student contacts Dawson 2008- frequency, quantity, flow of exchange Bieleman 2003- e-mails’ effects on satisfaction NACOL; Akin and Neal 2003- time intensiveness of personalized attention and feedback

Data, Methodology, Measurements

• 14 Sections of an Online INTRODUCTORY SOCIOLOGY Course

(Fall 2007 through Fall 2009); 5 Sections Pre-QM/9 Post-QM

• Each course: 8 Units (Units “self-contained”: DB + assessment)
• N= 112; all variables measured at Unit level of observation
• Data (Teaching and Student Presences):

Content analysis of Instructor and Student DB posts Coding: Evidence of each element in post = 1 “instance”. Totals averaged by number of student participants in Unit

• Data (Teacher Presence):

Archived individual e-mails (averaged per day; response time) Archived class “Reminders” (averaged per day)

• Data (DB/Test Grades): BB Gradebook
• Data (Satisfaction): Content analysis of DB comments

Analysis: ANOVA by QM

VARIABLE MEANS BEFORE/ AFTER QM F SIG REMINDERS .2146

.2955 4.664 .033*

EMAILS

1.2673 1.8848 6.691 .011*

RESPONSE TIME (INVERTED)

.1458 .3151 45.71 6 .000*

AN ANAL ALYSI SIS: COM OMPA PARISON ON of MEAN EANS EL ELEM EMENTS S of TEAC TEACHING G PR PRESEN ESENCE

VARIABLE MEANS BEFORE/ AFTER QM F SIG

IAGREE

.2772 .4181

7.046 .009* ICLARIFY

.8263 1.1901

11.54 5 .001* IMANAGE

.4469 .2169

18.63 2 .000* IEXPERT

.6951 .8890

5.528 .021* IOPINION

.1611 .4054

25.27 5 .000* IEMOT

.7626 9446

4.283 .041*

ANALYSI YSIS: C S: COMPARI PARISON N

• f MEANS

MEANS EL ELEM EMEN ENTS o

• f

ST STUD UDEN ENT PRESE PRESENCES

VARIABLE

MEANS BEFORE/ AFTER QM

F SIG SEMOT

1.9966 1.4418 4.391 .038*

SGROUP

.7555 .1908 44.172 .000*

SAGREE

1.5542 1.2110 4.974 .028*

SEXPLORE

2.7366 2.5395 .978 .325

SAPPLY

1.9525 1.1599 14.737 .000* SINTEGRATE 1.4138 1.4857 .194 .661

STRIGGER

.7665 .7313 .105 .747

VARIABLE MEANS

BEFORE/ AFTER QM

F SIG TEST GRADE

81.538 80.524

.311 .578 DB GRADE

80.375 86.033

9.487 .003*

Analysis: Factorial Structures of Student, Teacher, and Teaching Presences (Factor Loadings/ Varimax Rotation)

IAGREE .691 RESPONSE TIME

.610

EMAILS

.730

REMIND

.719

IMANAGE

.920

IEXPERT

.755

ICLARIFY

.893

TEACHING TEACHER SSOCIAL

SAPPLY

.824

SGROUP

.890

SCOGNL SCOGNHI

STRIGGER

.805

SEXPLORE

.803

SINTEGR

.892

SAGREE

.754

IMANAGE

IOPINION

.687

IEMOT

.855

SCALES: TEACHER (Chronbach’s Alpha= .526) TEACHING (Alpha= .846) SCALES: SSOCIAL (Chronbach’s Alpha= .845) SCOGNITIVELOW (Alpha= .802) SCOGNITIVEHIGH (Alpha= .840)

SEMOT

.783

Analysis: Regression

VARIABLES MODEL 1:TESTGRADE MODEL 2:DBGRADE MODEL 3:SATISF Beta sig Beta sig Beta sig (Const) QM .095 .520 .308* .011 .759* .000 TEACHER

• .157

.181

• .087

.445

• .222*

.016 TEACHING

• .197

.122

• .071

.557 .110 .266 SSOCIAL

• .162

.254

• .061

.641 .336* .003 SCOGNLO .280* .023 .062 .595

• .034

.720 SCOGNHI .182 .187 .336* .008

• .078

.466 MODEL FIT Adjusted R2 .066 .212 .429 F Change 2.301 5.277 14.909 Sig F Change .040* .000* .000* *p< .05; df= 6; Method: ENTER QM Codes: 0 = preQM; 1 = postQM All “Presences”= SCALES/Unweighted Sums of Variable Z-Scores

Analysis: EQS 6 CFA:

Four-Factor Model of Teacher/Teaching Presences

Chi Sq.=65.23 P=0.00 CFI=0.90 RMSEA=0.10

Summary

Instructor’s Contribution to Online Learning may consists of:

• Course Design and Organization
• Teaching Presence on DB
• Direct Management on DB
• Personalized/ Teacher contacts with Students on and out of BB

QM Rubric Implementation as New “Design and Organization”:

• Increases Teacher and Teaching Presences
• Reduces Direct Management on DB/ “personalizes”

Management by moving it to Teacher domain (personal e-mail)

• Reduces Student “self-management” (i.e. “Group Concerns”) on

DB, thus, indirectly reducing “Student Social Presence”

• Has a positive effect on Student Higher-Order Cognitive

Presence via higher Teaching Presence

• Teacher Presence, Student Social Presence, and QM positively

affect course Satisfaction

• QM and Higher-Order Cognitive Presence positively affect DB

Grades

Limitations of Study Suggestions for Future Research

• Confounded effects of Instructor Teaching

Experience and Training and new Course Design Implementation (QM)

• Small sample size; Unit-level (not Student-

level) analysis

• Subjectivity of content analysis/ coding
• Temporal dynamics within the Course/ Time-

series analysis across the course Unit structure

Just a Thought … IF:

Teaching is a CRAFT encompassing Conception and Execution (Braverman) Instructor’s Conception of the Course as expressed in the Course Design (including Goals, SLOs, and Assessments) AND the Execution of the Teaching process ARE Socially Constructed in the context of the College and larger culture; academic field; Instructor perceptions, personality, and styles Student Learning is internalized, subjectively perceived, BUT is expressed and assessed in the context of external socially constructed reality at least partially created by the Instructor

THANK YOU!

Questions, Comments: aahall@dcc.edu